South Korea is currently in final negotiations with the United States on a deal that could reshape the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific: the construction of nuclear-powered submarines. What began as a diplomatic coup — Washington’s agreement in principle to support Seoul’s acquisition — has become bogged down in one deceptively simple question: where will they be built?
George W. Bush, Nicolas Sarkozy, Therea May, Bill Gates, John Hennessy, Larry Ellison, and George Soros - virtually every target of an Alex Jones conspiracy alert - has spoken there. And this year, it was Justin Trudeau’s turn.
U.S. alternative media is awash with stories on Israel and Gaza, Ukraine and Russia, and now Iran and Venezuela. There’s influence operations, assassinations, drug imports, illegal killings, imminent nuclear war, and the collapse of NATO, the E.U., the U.N, and even the U.S. But where’s the Korean Peninsula?
Two pieces put out this week invited scorn. The first, “South Korea’s special envoys for… what exactly???”, used diplomatic tradition to criticize the sending of special envoys at the beginning of a presidential administration, invited praise from the right, and anger from the left. The second, “The challenges to Korean conservatism”, used American debates and local knowledge to criticize the ongoing failure to reform the conservative movement in Korea, invited praise from the left and anger from the right. I’m a born charmer.
The U.S, or at least some of those within influential circles in the U.S, are creeping towards war with China. Preparations are well underway. Australia, Japan, and South Korea, are pushed, prodded, and compelled to line up and play. They’re playing knock and run.
When President Lee visits the White House later this month, it will not be a meeting. To quote Admiral Ackbar—it’s a trap! Seoul shouldn’t just be worried about the immediate outcome but also whether this will be the beginning of the end for the alliance.
Kenneth Waltz’s “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better” seems to have passed from academic to popular reading in South Korea. I saw an ajumma in the park reading it while her poodle panted beside her in a dog pram. It was a very unique situation.
Each state has their own rationales. South Korea has three: diplomatic timing, strategic delay; and the decreased relevance of NATO-IP4 framework.
Significance. South Korea’s presidential election domestic debate focused on candidate personalities, recent political events, and party politics, amid a strategic landscape reshaped by Donald Trump’s presidency and growing demands regarding tariffs, United States Forces Korea (USFK), and U.S.-China rivalry.
Every discussion about South Korea’s foreign policy options begins with the same unspoken constraint: what will Washington tolerate? Proposals for strategic realignment, closer ties with China, or regional multilateralism are not dismissed because they’re impossible—they’re dismissed because they’re implausible within the context of U.S. political expectations.
